Wahle v. Reinbach
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 76 Ill. 322,1875 WL 8201 |
| Parties | WILLIAM WAHLEv.LOUIS REINBACH. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Morgan county; the Hon. CYRUS EPLER, Judge, presiding.
This was a bill in equity, filed by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, to restrain the erection of a privy near to the residence and well of the complainant. The court below decreed the relief sought.
Mr. OSCAR A. DELEUW, for the plaintiff in error.
Messrs. DUMMER & BROWN, for the defendant in error.
This is a bill in equity, to enjoin a threatened nuisance. The substantial allegations of the bill are, that complainant is the owner and occupant of a certain lot, in the town of Jacksonville, on which is the residence now and for some time past occupied by himself and family; that respondent has become the owner of an adjoining lot, on which he is proceeding to construct a privy, within eight feet of complainant's dwelling house and the cellar thereunder, and within twenty feet of the well of water from which complainant and his family are supplied with water for drinking and cooking and other domestic purposes; that the privy is being built by respondent for the use to which such structures are appropriate; that if he is permitted to complete and use it, it will become an intolerable nuisance to complainant and his family, and that, from its proximity to his dwelling house, cellar and well, it will become injurious to the health and comfort of himself and family, and prejudicial to the enjoyment of his property.
It is further alleged, that respondent has no authority to construct the privy at this particular place, for the reason that it is on ground reserved by a prior owner of the property for an alley; that he has an abundance of room on his own premises for its location, so remote from any building that no inconvenience would result from it; that if the privy shall be completed and used, as intended, complainant and his family will suffer therefrom irreparable injury to their comfort and health, and that he has no adequate remedy at law. The answer of the respondent admits the contemplated construction of the privy at the place alleged in the bill, but denies all the other allegations.
The court, on hearing, found the allegations of the bill to be true, and decreed as therein prayed.
Having given the evidence an attentive consideration, we see no cause to disagree with the conclusion of the court as to its effect.
The question, then, to be determined is, do the allegations in the bill authorize the decree?
It is argued by the counsel for complainant, that, before an injunction can issue in such cases, it must be determined by a jury, on a trial at law, that a nuisance in fact exists. It is true, and has been so held by this court in the cases to which he refers, that a court of equity will always act with reluctance in abating a nuisance, and seldom until it has been found to be such by a jury. Dunning v. City of Aurora, 40 Ill. 481; Bliss v. Kennedy, 43 Id. 67; Town of Lakeview v. Letz, 44 Id. 81. These cases, however, recognize the doctrine, which is supported by all the authorities on this branch of equity jurisdiction, that where the injury resulting from the nuisance is, in its nature, irreparable, as, when loss of health, loss of trade, destruction of the means of subsistence, or permanent ruin to property will ensue from the wrongful act or erection, courts of equity will interfere by injunction, in furtherance of justice and the violated rights of property. Waterman's Eden on Injunctions, 259, 4...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. McConnell
...irreparable. It may make this point more clear if a right understanding is had of what constitutes an irreparable injury. In Wahle v. Reinbach, 76 Ill. 322, supreme court of Illinois approved a definition of these terms in the following language: 'By 'irreparable injury' is not meant such i......
-
Rosehill Cemetery Co. v. City of Chicago
...559. A nuisance is something that is offensive, physically, to the senses, and by such offensiveness makes life uncomfortable. Wahle v. Reinbach, 76 Ill. 322;Wente v. Commonwealth Fuel Co., 232 Ill. 526, 83 N. E. 1049;Oehler v. Levy, 234 Ill. 595, 85 N. E. 271,17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1025,14 An......
-
Gardner v. Int'l Shoe Co.
...for themselves and families and any interference in that comfortable enjoyment of life is a wrong which the law will redress. Wahle v. Reinbach, 76 Ill. 322;Seacord v. People, 22 Ill.App. 279;Iliff v. School Directors, 45 Ill. 419;Cook v. City of DuQuoin, 256 Ill.App. 452;Wineland v. Huber,......
-
Schatz v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
...(a stable). Whatever is offensive physically to the senses and by such offensiveness makes life uncomfortable is a nuisance. Wahle v. Reinbach, 76 Ill. 322 at p. 327. In Wente v. Commonwealth Fuel Co., 232 Ill. 526 at p. 533, 83 N.E. 1049, it was said that a business offensive to such a deg......